This isn’t a tough issue. You either support equality, or you do not. You either support separation of Church and State, or you argue that marriage is “sacred” and the state has a say in what constitutes a “sacred” marriage.

“Civil Unions” are a piss poor attempt at having it both ways, a return to the “separate but equal” bullshit that the civil rights movement knocked out of the water.

So why not just take the right position on an issue for once? Why not stand up and say “I am for equality”, and mean it?

Are Democrats that afraid of the response from Conservative Christians?

Forget soccer moms and nascar dads. This year’s buzz demographic are the sunday heteros. The one’s whose bigoted interpretation of the bible is so powerful, that the resulting hate won’t let them vote for anything other than inequality before the law. That’s who the leading Democrats pandered to during the debate. That’s who the Democrats are letting define them as a party.

5 Responses

The Dems were a disaster last night on the issue of gay marriage equity.

Yes, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are the exceptions, but they have about as much a chance of being elected president as I have.

The three front runners: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards were a huge disappointment to me and nearly all of my readers. Imagine, Hillary actually said she supported states rights to address the issue? Like Texas and Utah maybe? Edwards said outright that he doesn’t support gay marriage. Obama came the closest to earning my approval, stating if president, he would make sure the 1,100 rights straight people instantly receive would convey to gay couples in a civil union.

You know, it’s 2007 — not 1907, or even 1997, and these DINO Dems are stilll acting like timid little creatures, afraid of Fred Phelps or Phyllis Shaffley. Leaders, especially national leaders are supposed to LEAD. I see little of this in the top tier of Democratic hopefuls.

Just because someone disagrees with your point of view doesn’t make them a bigot or that they “hate” someone who engages in homosexual activity. Not even if they are a Christian. Do you really think you can change the minds of people if you’re calling them bigots and say they’re expounding hate because they don’t share your view?

You have what you see as the “right view” and others have their view which is opposite to yours that they see as the “right view.” That doesn’t mean they hate you unless you’re saying you hate them.

Why not just discuss the issues without inflammatory, insulting words? The people showing true hate…the Fred Phelpses, for example…are a minuscule minority of the actual side of the political spectrum that does not support “gay rights.”

Yes, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are the exceptions, but they have about as much a chance of being elected president as I have.

As your chief campaign strategist, I advise you setup an exploratory committee immediately.

Obama did come the closest. I don’t know what Edward’s problem is, and Hillary is once again using the rhetoric of the right to elucidate her positions. This strengthen’s the right’s idealogical pull! (So frustrating!)

I see little leadership anywhere in the so called top rungs.

thevoiceoftruth
I’m calling a spade a spade. This isn’t a point of view question.
I’m just sick of pretending that it’s ok to classify an entire group
of people as sinners, and then use that to push actual laws.

I do think you raise a very good point about changing minds.
The truth is, I’m not sure. The Christians I am calling attention to are the Fred Phelpses and their ilk. Certainly not all Christians feel that way, and more importantly, act that way. My question is, why are the Democrats so chained to their opinions then?

What I’m describing is itself inflammatory. I can try to hide it using softer words, but why? There is no defensible reason for fighting gay rights. None. Kicking gay people out of your church is one matter. But why should there even be a question about equality before the law?